The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The North Corral > Black Powder and Cowboy Action Shooting

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 28, 2002, 01:40 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2000
Posts: 416
mass / volume of black powder

blackpowder and blackpowder replacement powder loading information is usually listed in volume charges. Simple enough, but uses grains ass the unite (mass). I assume a 100 grain mark on a volume measure is supposed to deliver roughly 100 grains (mass) of black powder if it were put on a scale. Not really much confusion until pyrodex and other black powder substitutes are used. While regular pyrodex can just be used with the same volume measure, the mass is actually less, but produces the same effect as the equal "volume" grains of black powder. Hodgdon's new powder, triple 7, suggest using 15% less volume for equivalent black powder charges.

What I'm curious about, is what actual volume measurement is supposed to correlate to a mass measurement of powder.
RHarris is offline  
Old November 28, 2002, 08:46 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2001
Posts: 519
Uhm, well let's see if I got the question right.

With BP you can actually load more accurately if loaded by weight instead of volume. However this weight will vary quite a bit with different brands or different batches, it is also more dificult to reload with a scale when out hunting or at the Alamo, etc. So volume loading is very aceptable, and has become the norm.

At a certain granulation BP will correlate very well weight to volume.

BP replacements mess all of this up, they are substantially less dense than BP and while they can be more acurately loaded by weight also the weights are all over the board and you would get into the same deal as loading smokeless, looking up differnt weights for different powders for different loads, etc much easier to load by volume.

If that wasn't the answer to the right question I apologize.
The Forty-Four spoke and it sent lead and smoke
And seventeen inches of flame. -Marty Robbins

jjmorgan64 is offline  
Old November 28, 2002, 09:06 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 241
Yet another reason to stick with REAL Black Powder;
Just measure (or weigh) and then shoot!
Watch your top-knot.
BluRidgDav is offline  
Old November 29, 2002, 08:29 PM   #4
Jimmy Mac
Senior Member
Join Date: June 30, 2002
Posts: 688
Tests have shown that when using real blackpowder that accuracy is the same no matter if you use weighed charges or by volume.
Jimmy Mac is offline  
Old June 27, 2004, 11:34 AM   #5
Junior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2004
Posts: 10
You seem to have the concept grasped firmly, but then do not believe your conclusions.

Stripping away the baffle-gab, recognized black powder substitutes can use identical powder measure settings as the black powder each is intended to replace to deliver [nearly precisely] comparable amount of substitute.

Ignore the numbers and pay attention to "space taken in the measure." Results -- that is, velocity, peak pressures -- will be as similar as the substitute manufacturer can get. Think of results of the measured amount rather than the amount itself.

A powder measure need not be "approximate" or adjustable. Any container that holds the powder safely is acceptable. If you create a measure specifically for a charge of specific propellant, your volume measurement will be very close to a scaled measurement of weight.
Naphtali is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2016 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.05237 seconds with 7 queries